JUDGMENT : S. N. P. Singh, J. - The two writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the Bihar State Typists and Copyists Union through J. P. Jha, the General Secretary of the Union. In these two applications common questions of fact and law are involved. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common JUDGMENT :. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as follows : The work of the Copying Departments of the Revenue, Civil and Criminal Courts in the State of Bihar is done by two sets of employees, namely, (1) typists and copyists, and (2) comparing clerks. The appointment of typists and copyists in the Civil Courts is made in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter II of Part IV of the Patna High Court General Rules and Circular ORDER :s (Civil) Volume I. The typists and copyists are employed on remuneration basis whereas the comparing clerks are appointed on salary basis. As provided in the High Court General Rules and Circular ORDER :s and the Bihar Records Manual, the remuneration of the typists and copyists had been initially fixed at two-third of the price per folio typed or copied by them. The remaining one-third of the price out of the charge levied per folio represented the payment to Government on account of salary of examiners (comparing clerks) and costs of paper. It appears that in response to certain demands made by the typists and copyists, the Government of Bihar and Orissa in the month of September 1916 granted certain concession to the typists and copyists employed in Revenue offices and in Civil and Criminal Courts. A copy of the letter dated the 29th of September, 1916, sent by the Secretary to the Government of Bihar and Orissa in the Revenue Department to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Bihar and Orissa has been made Annexure "1" to the two writ applications. In Paragraph 2 of that letter the concessions which were granted to the typists and copyists are mentioned. In Paragraph 2 of that letter the concessions which were granted to the typists and copyists are mentioned. Paragraph 2 reads as under; "The Lieutenant Governor in Council is unable to comply with all the requests of the memorialists, but he has decided after consultation with the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, to grant the following two concessions to Typists and Copyists employed in Revenue office and in Civil Courts and Criminal Courts, namely, (1) to allow them the same rates for all Classes of copying work, whether done for Government or for private parties, and (2) to admit to the benefits of the General Provident Fund those who can reasonably be regarded as members of the fixed establishment." By Resolution No. 426/F, dated the 13th of January, 1944, a cost of living allowance at a flat rate of Rs. 6/8/- per month was allowed to the typists and copyists of Revenue, Civil and Criminal Courts. In the year 1951 representations were filed before the Government by the Typists and Copyists Union making several demands. The Government after consideration of the representations took a decision in the matter. The decision of the Government was communicated by a letter dated the 29th of December, 1951, by the Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Bihar, and the Registrar, High Court, Patna. A copy of that letter has been made Annexure "2" to the two writ applications. This decision of the Government is contained in Paragraphs 1 to 6 of that letter which read as under:- "1. There will be no change in the terms and conditions of the services of copyists and Typists and will continue as at present. They will get the remuneration on the basis of folios typed and copies besides the usual cost of living allowance. They should not be treated as Government servants and there will be no contributory Provident Fund or any other retirement benefits. 2. The price of folio in the criminal and Civil Courts may be raised from annas four to annas five including annas-/2/ as surcharge of which half will be payable to the typists of the lower court and for the sake of uniformity the same rate for folio may be introduced in the High Court and the typists here also should get the same remuneration for folio work. Necessary action in the manner considered most suitable may be taken by the High Court regarding the increase of the price of the folios so far as the Civil and Criminal Courts are concerned. 3. The Copying Department will be run on a no profit and no loss basis. After meeting (1) (the cost of stationery, (b) Pay, pension, and leave charges of the comparing clerks, and (c) cost of living allowance to the Typists, Copyists and Comparing clerks out of the copying fees on increase of -/ /6 per folio may be allowed bringing the total rate of remuneration payable on each folio to as -/2/6 against the existing rate of annas /2/-. The increase in rate is only temporary and may be revised when detailed figures of income and expenditure have been calculated. 4. A general circular should issue both from the High Court and the Board of Revenue emphasizing on the Collectors and the District Judges that the rule about the standard of output and the minimum remuneration should be strictly enforced by retrenching surplus staff, if necessary, or talking on more staff if considered desirable. 5. In the case of the staff of the High Court the remuneration for ordinary typing work should go up by 20% and for typing tabular matters by 30%. The daily rate of remuneration for me Mapists should be raised from Rs. 1/8/- to Rs. 3/- (three) as they are casual workers and are not guaranteed stable volume of work. 6. These ORDER :s will take effect from the 1st January, 1952. It is alleged in the two writ applications that the petitioner Union protested against the decision of the Government curtailing the remuneration of the typists and copyists to one-half from two-third of the price of folios but no final decision has been taken though eighteen years have elapsed. On the 6th of June, 1970, the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Finance Department sent a letter to the Accountant General, Bihar, to the effect that "the Copyists and Typists of the courts are not Government servants in terms of Rule 4 of Bihar General Provident Fund Rules read with Finance Department Resolution No. 2751/F dated 29.2.56 and they are not eligible for the membership of the General Provident Fund". A copy of that letter has been made Annexure "7" to C.W.J.C. No. 1630 of 1970. A copy of that letter has been made Annexure "7" to C.W.J.C. No. 1630 of 1970. It appears that the petitioner Union had represented to the Government to extend the benefit of the increased cost of living allowance at Central rates to the Copyists and Typists of the Courts also. The Government did not accede to the demand and the Under Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department by his letter dated the 14th of March, 1970, conveyed the decision of the Government to the Law Department, Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Patna, the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, all Divisional Commissioners and a District Officers. A copy of that letter has been made Annexure 8' to C.W.J.C. No. 1629 of 1970." 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 1629 of 1970 the petitioner's Union has made a prayer for quashing Annexures 2' and 8' of that writ application. In C.W.J.C. No. 1630 of 1970 the petitioner Union has made a prayer for quashing Annexure 7' to that writ application. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and the Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department (respondents 1 and 2 respectively) in C.W.J.C. No. 1630 of 1970. In the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the Copyists and Typists are not Government servants and as such they are not entitled to all the benefits permissible to a Government servant under Rules framed by Government. It has also been asserted that the Copyists and Typists were never treated as Government servants. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that as the Copyists and Typists are not Government servants they have not been allowed to contribute to the General Provident Fund. It is further stated that the ORDER :of the Government dated the 29th of September, 1916, was superseded by the Notification dated the 18th of August, 1948. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that as the Copyists and Typists are not Government servants they have not been allowed to contribute to the General Provident Fund. It is further stated that the ORDER :of the Government dated the 29th of September, 1916, was superseded by the Notification dated the 18th of August, 1948. A copy of the Notification has been made Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit and it reads as under; "No. 20757-F.,—In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (5) of Sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as adopted by the India Provisional Constitution ORDER :, 1947, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to make the following rules in supersession of all previous rules relating to the Bihar General Provident Fund for Government servants under the rule making control of the Provincial Government." It is stated that though the Government ORDER :dated the 29th of September, 1916, ceased to be operative with effect from the 1st of October, 1948, in view of Annexure 'A', due to some oversight the Typists and Copyists continued to contribute to the Bihar General Provident Fund. When this irregularity was brought to the notice of the State Government the correct position was intimated to all concerned by Letter No. 7392 dated the 6th of June, 1970 (Annexure 7 to C.W.J.C. No. 1630 of 1970). Regarding the remuneration of the Typists and Copyists and regarding the claim for increased cost of living allowance, certain statements have been made in Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit which read as follows :- "Then in 1951 though the share of remuneration of the Typists and Copyists was revised from 2/3rd to ½ but it did not affect their monthly earning because prior to this decision the price per folio was only annas three out of which annas two was paid to the Typists and Copyists and the remaining annas one was credited to Government account. But with effect from 1.1.1952 the price of the folio was raised to annas five cut of which /2/6/- was paid to the Typists and Copyists and the remaining -/2/6 was credited to Government. Besides this the Government was also pleased to raise the minimum monthly earning as follows with effect from 1955. Prior to revision After revision. English Typist Rs. 80/- Rs. 100/- English Copyist. Rs. 55/- Rs. 68/-12 Copyist. (Vernacular). Rs. 40/- Rs. Besides this the Government was also pleased to raise the minimum monthly earning as follows with effect from 1955. Prior to revision After revision. English Typist Rs. 80/- Rs. 100/- English Copyist. Rs. 55/- Rs. 68/-12 Copyist. (Vernacular). Rs. 40/- Rs. 50/-. Due to change in the price of Folio from -/5/- to 35 N. P. the typists and copyists are paid @ l7½ paise since 1964 and thus their earnings have also been increased as follows:- English Typist- From Rs. 100/- to Rs. 112/- P.M. English Copyist- From Rs. 68/12 to Rs. Rs. 77/- P.M. Copyist (Vernacular)- From Rs. 50/to Rs. 56/P.M. The statement given below will show the total earning, and the amount paid to them per month. Total 2/3rd Share Amount Paid earning including C.L.A. (1) Typist Rs. 112/- 224/- 149.33 112+69.22=181. 22. 80. 80% (2) English Copyist Rs. 77/- 154/- 102.47 77+69.22=146. 22. 95% (3) Copyist. Vernacular Rs. 56/- 112/- 74.67 56+69.12=125. 12. 111. 60% It would thus appear from the above statement that the typists and copyists are paid more than their demands, rather, in the case of English Copyist they are paid 95% of the total earnings and in the case of vernacular copyists they are paid 111.60%. The principle has been that the Copying Department will run on no loss no profit basis. Previously when the rule was framed it was presumed that after paying two third of the value of stamps on copies to the copyists and typists, the remainder would be enough to pay the cost of the comparing clerk on a fixed pay of Rs. 30/- and the cost of copying and typing paper and stationary. Only one kind of payment at that time was made, namely, remuneration equal to two third of the value of stamp used. There was no contributory provident fund or any other benefit. The establishment still remains a commercial department and there does not seem to be any reason to change its basis. Now apart from the remuneration per folio a typist and a copyist gets also C. L. A. The comparing clerk is now not entertained on a fixed pay. He gets a pay in the scale of Rs. 105/- 155/- and also C. L. A. The cost of stationary has also gone up in the meantime. Now apart from the remuneration per folio a typist and a copyist gets also C. L. A. The comparing clerk is now not entertained on a fixed pay. He gets a pay in the scale of Rs. 105/- 155/- and also C. L. A. The cost of stationary has also gone up in the meantime. At the time the ORDER :was passed last (1951) it was presumed that if the typists and copyists were paid at the rate of 50% of the value of the stamp the remaining 50% of the value of the stamp will cover the cost of C. L. A. (Rs. 22.50) granted to them, the cost of pay and C. L. A. to the comparing clerk and the enhanced cost of stationary. The situation has completely changed. The typists and copyists are now paid as C. L. A. 69.22 against 22-50 in 1951. Due to the payment of enhanced rate of C.L.A. to the Typist and Copyist, the copying department is incurring heavy loss and therefore the claim of the petitioner regarding C.L.A. at the enhance rate is not justified and the State Government is not in a position to incur further loss by granting enhanced rate of C.L.A. to them." 5. It was fairly conceded by Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Union in the two cases that the applications can succeed only if it is held that the Copyists and Typists employed in the various courts are Government servants. The main question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether the Copyists and Typists in the establishments of the Courts are Government servants. 6. Before deciding this question I would deal with the preliminary objection which has been raised by Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing to the respondents, regarding the maintainability of the two writ applications. Learned counsel submitted that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution can only be made at the instance of an individual who is an aggrieved person. The Bihar State Copyists Typists Union or the General Secretary of the said Union is not a person who is aggrieved by any action of the respondents and as such the writ applications under Article 226 are not maintainable at their instance. In support of this preliminary objection, Mr. The Bihar State Copyists Typists Union or the General Secretary of the said Union is not a person who is aggrieved by any action of the respondents and as such the writ applications under Article 226 are not maintainable at their instance. In support of this preliminary objection, Mr. Jha relied on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) the Gandak Yojana Karamchari Kalyan Sangh and another v. The State of Bihar and others (1969 P.L.J.R. 521). In that case a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution had been filed by the Gandak Yojana Karamchari Kalyan Sangh, a society registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, through its General Secretary and one Ramakant Singh, a truck driver. The petitioners had made a prayer for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or ORDER :directing the respondents to extend to the work-charged employees posted at Balmikinagar all the facilities and benefits of service of temporary Government servants discharging similar functions as those of work-charged employees of the Gandak Project at Balmikinagar. The Bench of this Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and others (A.I.R. 1951 Supreme Court 41) and held that neither petitioner no. 1 nor petitioner no. 2 was entitled to present the petition as their right was not directly affected. In the instant case it is not very clear whether J. P. Jha, the General Secretary of the Union, is himself employed as a typist and copyist in any court. If he is not working as a copyist or a typist only then in view of the Bench decision of this Court, referred to above, the two writ applications will not be maintainable at his instance. In the absence of a clear averment either in the writ applications or in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, whether J. P. Jha, the General Secretary of the Union is working as a typist or a copyist in any court, I find it difficult to hold that the two writ applications are not maintainable and to dispose of the two writ applications on the preliminary objection taken by Mr. Tara Kant Jha. I will, therefore, consider the two applications on merit. 7. Tara Kant Jha. I will, therefore, consider the two applications on merit. 7. The question whether the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution apply to a copyist and typist was considered in the case of (3) Bhawani Sahai v. Syed Naqui Imam and another (A.I.R. 1956 Patna 257). In that case the District Judge of Patna had dispensed with the services of a copyist. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner of that case that the District Judge, Patna, passed the ORDER :terminating the service of the petitioner in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution because no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed was given to him. It was also contended that the District Judge, Patna, passed the ORDER :terminating the services of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity to be heard was given to him before the punishment was inflicted. That case was placed for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Rai and Sinha, JJ. It appears that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in that case did not contend that the petitioner was a Government servant but he submitted that he held a civil post under the State of Bihar. It was held by both the learned Judges that he did not hold a civil post under the State and as such the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution were not applicable in his case. It may be stated that there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges on a different point. Rai, J. held that the ORDER :of the District Judge was an administrative ORDER :and the principle of audi alteram partem was not applicable. Sinha, J., on the other hand, held that the ORDER :of the District Judge was illegal since no opportunity to be heard was given to the petitioner. Because of difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, the case was referred to a third learned Judge, namely, Ramaswami, J. (as he then was). It was held by the learned third Judge that there had been a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and accordingly a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to quash the ORDER :of the District Judge, Patna. It was held by the learned third Judge that there had been a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and accordingly a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to quash the ORDER :of the District Judge, Patna. In that case Rai, J. while considering the question regarding the status of the petitioner made the following observation:- "The petitioner was appointed as a copyist in the copying Department in accordance with the provisions of Part IV Chapter II of the General Rules and Circular ORDER :s (Civil) Volume I. From R. 11 of this Chapter, it is clear that the petitioner was to be paid according to the amount of work done by him and his appointment was purely on a remuneration basis. He did not draw any fixed salary. The amount of remuneration payable to him depended on the amount of work done by him. From the letter dated 29.12.1954, issued under the authority of the Government of Bihar, which is Annexure D to the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party, it is clear that the typists were not to be treated as Government servants. From the Bihar Records Manual, Chapter VIII, R. 321 also it is clear that a copyist or typist is no better than a licensee. In this case also Mr. Samaiyar did not contend that his client was a Government servant but he submitted that in any event he will be deemed to have held a civil post under the State of Bihar. In my view, the petitioner, who was not a Government servant, cannot be said to have held a civil post under the Government. Sinha, J. agreed with the view of Rai, J. and observed thus; "In my opinion also the petitioner's case is not covered by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. That Article applies to a person, "who is a member of a Civil Service of the Union or an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State,. Therefore, there are two categories of civil servants to whom this Article applies. The petitioner conceded that he is not a Government servant under the first category, but contended that he holds a civil post under the State. Therefore, there are two categories of civil servants to whom this Article applies. The petitioner conceded that he is not a Government servant under the first category, but contended that he holds a civil post under the State. For the reasons given by my learned brother, it must be held that he is not even covered by the second category of Civil servants. In other words, he does not hold a civil post under the State." Mr. Basudeva Prasad submitted that there was no decision in that case whether a copyist or typist is a Government servant or not as it had been wrongly conceded by counsel appearing for the petitioner of that case that the petitioner was not a Government servant. Learned counsel further urged that the view taken in that case that a copyist does not hold a civil post under the State and as such the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not applicable in his case is not a correct view. According to learned counsel, the decision on that point must be held to be impliedly overruled by the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (4) State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Audh Narain Singh and another (A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 360) and the case of (5) the State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 884). 7. On the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, two points arise for consideration, namely, (1) whether there is any basis on which it can be held that copyists and typists in the establishments of the courts are Government servants; and (2) whether the decision in (3) Bhawani Sahai's case, referred to above, that a copyist does not hold a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution has been impliedly overruled by any decision of the Supreme Court. 8. In the Bihar Service Code, 1952, only three categories of Government servants are to be found, namely, (1) a permanent Government servant; (2) a Government servant holding a temporary post; and (3) a Government servant holding a tenure post. 8. In the Bihar Service Code, 1952, only three categories of Government servants are to be found, namely, (1) a permanent Government servant; (2) a Government servant holding a temporary post; and (3) a Government servant holding a tenure post. As defined in Rule 37 of Part I of the Bihar Service Code, "a permanent Government servant means a Government servant who holds a lien on a permanent post or would hold a lien on such a post had his lien not been suspended". In Rule 38 permanent post' has been defined as "a post carrying a definite rate of pay and sanctioned without limit of time." "Temporary post" has been defined in Rule 48 and it means "a post carrying a definite rate of pay and sanctioned for a limited time." "Tenure post" as defined in Rule 49 means "a permanent post which an individual Government servant may not hold for more than a limited period". "Pay", as defined in Rule 34 of the Service Code, means "the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as the pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reasons of his position in a cadre." It is the admitted position that the copyists and typists employed in the establishments of the Courts are not paid any monthly salary. They are paid on remuneration basis according to the amount of work done by them. Reference may be made to Rule 394 of Part IV, Chapter II, of the Civil Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Civil) Volume 1. The relevant part of Rule 394 reads as under; "Seventeen and a half paise out of the charge levied of 35 paise per folio (see Chapter I, Part V, Rule 408) represents the payment to Government on account of the salary of examiners and cost of paper, and the remaining seventeen and a half paise will represent the earnings of the Copyists or Typists, whose accounts will be made up monthly (fractions of paise, if any, in the total of monthly earnings should be ignored). The amount due to each shall be paid out of the contingencies." It will be noticed that in the case of examiners the word ''salary" has been used whereas in the case of the copyists or typists the word "earnings" has been used. It will further be noticed that the amount due to each of the copyists or typists is to be paid out of the contingencies. Thus it is clear that a copyist or typist is not paid any monthly salary but is paid remuneration for the services rendered by him. Mr. Basudeva Prasad conceded this position but he contended that the question whether a particular person employed by the Government is paid monthly salary or is paid otherwise for the services rendered by him is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the question whether he is a Government servant or not. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the case of (6) B. Christopher v. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workship (A.I.R. 1966 Allahabad 97); the case of (4) State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Audh Narain Singh and another (A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 360) and the case of (5) the State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 884). 9. In the Allahabad case it was observed by Dwivedi, J. (as he then was) as follows : "The mode of payment to a servant is entirely different from the relationship of master and servant. The mode of payment depends on various factors such as convenience. the availability of funds, conventions and the nature of the post. It is permissible to the Government to adopt different modes of payment according to its convenience etc. But whether a person holds a civil post under a State should not, to my mind, depend on the mode of payment of remuneration to him by the Government for the services rendered by him to the Government." In the case of (4) State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Audh Narain Singh and another (A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 360) the question for consideration was whether a Tahvildar appointed by a Government Treasurer in Uttar Pradesh was entitled to protection of Article 311. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in that case that the Tahvildar is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution on the following findings: "The Government Treasurer is a civil servant of the State holding a specific post, and he is authorised by the terms of his employment to employ Tahvildars to assist him in discharging his duties. Payment of remuneration to the Tehvildars is for services rendered in the 'cashier department of the District treasury' of the State. The Tahvildars receive their remuneration directly from the State, and are subject to the control of the District Officers in the matter of transfer, removal and disciplinary action. Employment of Tahvildars being for the purpose of carrying cut the work of the State, even though the degree of control is exercised by the Government Treasurer and the appointment is in the first instance made by the Treasurer subject to the approval of the District Officers, it must be held that the Tahvildar is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution." In that case their Lordships made the following important observation; "Whether in a given case the relationship of Master and servant exists is a question of fact, which must be determined on a consideration of all material and relevant circumstances having a bearing on that question. In general selection by the employer, coupled with payment by him of remuneration or wages, the right to control the method of work, and a power to suspend or remove from employment are indicative of the relation of master and servant. But co-existence of all those indicia is not predicated in every case to make the relation one of master and servant. In special classes of employment a contract of service may exist, even in the absence of one or more of those Indicia. But ordinarily the light of an employer to control the method of doing the work, and the power of superintendence and control may be treated as strongly indicative of the relation of master and servant, for that relation imports the power not only to direct the doing of some work but also the power to direct the manner in which the work is to be done. If the employer has the power, prima facie, the relation is that of master and servant." In the case of (5) the State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 884) the question for consideration was whether a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley holds a civil post under the State of Assam, and is entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Mauzadar holds a civil post under the State of Assam and he is entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In that case it was observed as follows:- "The State has the power and the right to select and appoint a Mauzadar and the power to suspend and dismiss him. He is a subordinate public servant working under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner. He receives by way of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a salary. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and him. He holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office which falls vacant on the death or removal of the incumbent and which is filled up by successive appointments. He is a responsible officer exercising delegated powers of Government. Mauzadars in the Assam Valley are appointed Revenue Officers and ex-officio Assistant Settlement Officers. Originally, a Mauzadar may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor. But having regard to the existing system of his recruitment, employment and functions, he is a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State." 10. The cases cited by Mr. Basudeva Prasad support his contention that the mode of payment to a person employed by the Government is not the criterion for deciding the question whether he is a Government servant or not and this contention must, therefore, be accepted. The main question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether or not there is relationship of master and servant. In ORDER :to decide this question we have to take into consideration all the materials and relevant facts having a bearing on the question. The main question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether or not there is relationship of master and servant. In ORDER :to decide this question we have to take into consideration all the materials and relevant facts having a bearing on the question. As already stated, all the copyists and typists in the establishments of Courts are employed in accordance with the rules contained in Chapter II, Part IV, of the Civil Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Civil) Volume I. The rules of Chapter II, Part IV, have been renumbered as Rules 384 to 396. I would refer to the relevant rules. Rule 385 reads thus; "The copying Department shall have as many copyists as may be required for the purpose of supplying all applicants with copies without inconvenient delay. One of them at least should be conversant with map-copying." Rule 386 runs as under; "No one but a copyist appointed by the District Judge shall be employed in the preparation of copies; Provided that where it appears that the granting of ordinary copies is likely to be much delayed by reason of having to furnish urgent copies, an extra copyist may be temporarily appointed by the Judge-in-charge for the number of days actually necessary." Rule 387 provides as follows:- "The number of copyists appointed must not be greater than will admit, under ordinary circumstances, of each Vernacular Copyist earning at least Rs. 50 and of each English Copyist earning at least Rs. 100 per month. If the average earnings fall regularly below this rate steps should be taken to reduce the establishment." Rule 391 reads as under: "The services of copyists whose work is inaccurate or in other respects unsatisfactory should be dispensed with." It is clear from Rule 385 that there is no fixed number of posts for the copyists in the Copying Department of the establishment of a Court. The number of copyists to be employed in a particular court depends entirely on the amount of work of the Copying Department. The provision that no one except a copyist appointed by the District Judge shall be employed in the preparation of copies has been made in Rule 386 with the sole object of not allowing persons, who are not approved by the District Judge, to have access to court records. The provision that no one except a copyist appointed by the District Judge shall be employed in the preparation of copies has been made in Rule 386 with the sole object of not allowing persons, who are not approved by the District Judge, to have access to court records. Rule 387 also shows that there is no fixed number of posts for the copyists and typists in the establishment of a court. The number of copyists has to be reduced in a particular establishment if their average earnings fall short of the rate prescribed in the rule. Rule 391 provides for the termination of the services of copyists only if their work is found unsatisfactory. It may be stated here that under the rules the District Judge or the Judge-in-charge of the Copying Department has not been given any power to control the method and hours of work of the copyists. It is open to a copyist to work for one hour or to work for five hours. There is no prescribed leave rule for the copyists and typists. If they absent themselves they only lose the cost of living allowance. There is no rule for taking disciplinary action against them. As I have already pointed out, they are paid their earnings out of the contingencies. Taking all these facts and circumstances, referred to above, into consideration, I am of the view that there is no relationship of master and servant. As pointed out in the case of (7) Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhanj V. Raghu Nath Misra and others (A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 589), there is a distinction between "serving under the Government" and "in the service of the Government". One may serve under a Government but one may not necessarily be in the service of the Government. Under the latter expression one not only serves under the Government but is in the service of the Government and it imports the relationship of master and servant. The copyists and typists no doubt are serving under the Government but they are not in the service of the Government as there in no relationship of master and servant. 11. In course of his argument Mr. The copyists and typists no doubt are serving under the Government but they are not in the service of the Government as there in no relationship of master and servant. 11. In course of his argument Mr. Basudeva Prasad referred to Resolution No.1523-F, dated the 6th February, 1964, by the Government of Bihar, Finance Department, and contended on the basis of that Resolution that the copyists and typists of the Revenue, Civil and Criminal Courts, including the High Court, have been treated as Government servants. Resolution No. 1523-F reads as under: "In view of the continued rise in prices, the Provincial Government have reconsidered the existing ORDER :s relating to the grant of cost of living allowance to Government servants and have decided to give some further relief to Government servants who are not in receipt of high pay. They have accordingly decided to sanction an increase in the cost of living allowance over the existing rates admissible under Government Resolution No. 1423-F dated the 6th February, 1948, at the following flat rates, to the under-mentioned classes of Government servants: (1). In the case of whole-time Government servants (both non-gazetted and gazetted staff—married as well as unmarried) drawing pay up to Rs. 250 at Rs. 5 per month, with marginal relief to........ (a) non-gazetted and married gazetted staff drawing pay exceeding Rs. 250 but not exceeding Rs. 275; and (b) unmarried gazetted staff drawing pay exceeding Rs. 250 but not exceeding Rs.300; (ii) In the case of Copyists and Typists of the Revenue, Civil and Criminal Courts, including the High Court, at Rs. 5 per month; and (iii) (a) In the case of part-time Government servants drawing pay up to Rs. 250/-, at Rs. 2 per month, with marginal relief for such category of Government servants drawing pay exceeding Rs. 250 but not exceeding Rs. 270. (b) A Government servant working part-time in more than one post may draw the increase in cost of living allowance at the rates mentioned in Sub-clause (1) above, in each post held by him, but the total amount of additional cost of living allowance drawn by him should not exceed Rs. 5 per month. 2. These ORDER :s take effect from the 1st January 1949, and will remain in force till the 31st December, 1949. This has been sanctioned from year to year and it will remain in force till the 31st December, 1957. 5 per month. 2. These ORDER :s take effect from the 1st January 1949, and will remain in force till the 31st December, 1949. This has been sanctioned from year to year and it will remain in force till the 31st December, 1957. It will be noticed that the words "Government servants" have been used in Clause (i) and (iii)(a) and (b) but the words "Government servants" have not been used in Clause (ii). It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the copyists and typists of the Revenue, Civil and Criminal Courts, including the High Court, were treated as Government servants. 12. Mr. Basudeva Prasad referred to Rule 321 of the Bihar Records Manual and Rule 426 (iv) of the Bihar Financial Rules, Volume I. Rule 321 of the Bihar Records Manual relates to the licenses of the copyists and typists who are to be employed in the preparation of copies by the Collector. This rule is, therefore, not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question whether the copyist and typist employed in the establishments of Courts are Government servants. Rule 426 of the Bihar Financial Rules, Volume I, relates to the grant of advances for the purchase 0f typewriters for copyists. Clause (iv) of that rule reads as under; "If a typist for whom a machine has been purchased by means of an advance leaves Government service or is appointed to a different post before the advance has been fully repaid he may be allowed the option of removing the typewriter on payment in full of the outstanding instalments, or transferring it, together with the obligation to meet outstanding instalments, to his successor in receipt from the latter of a sum of money calculated on fair valuation of the machine." In that clause no doubt the words "Government Service" have been used but it can be inferred from the use of the words "Government service" in that Clause that the copyists have been treated as being in Government service. 13. In Annexure "1" to the applications there is nothing to show that the typists and copyists were treated as Government servants. As I have already stated, certain concessions were allowed to the copyists and typists including the benefits of contribution to the general provident fund. 13. In Annexure "1" to the applications there is nothing to show that the typists and copyists were treated as Government servants. As I have already stated, certain concessions were allowed to the copyists and typists including the benefits of contribution to the general provident fund. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that by the letter dated the 29th of December, 1951 (Annexure "2" to the applications) any change in the status of the copyists and typists was made. A copy of the letter of the Registrar, High Court, Patna, to the Secretary to Government Law (Judicial) Department, Patna, dated the 18th of December, 1968, has been made Annexure 10' to the reply filed by the petitioners to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. That letter only shows that the High Court had made certain proposals for the consideration of the Government relating to the typists and copyists. One of the proposals was that the typists and copyists employed by the Subordinate Civil Courts should be given the same scale of pay as the other lower division clerks of Civil Courts. A reference to that letter was made by Mr. Basudeva Prasad in course of his argument. As in that letter only recommendations were made, it is not possible to hold on the basis of that letter that the copyists and typists employed in the establishments of Courts were treated as Government servants. 14. From the foregoing discussions it is clear that the copyists and typists were never treated by the Government as Government servants. 15. In my considered opinion, therefore, the typists and copyists employed in the establishments of the various courts are not Government servants and they were never treated is such by the Government. I am also of the opinion that the decision in (3) Bhawani Sahai's case (A.I.R. 1956 Patna 257) that a copyist does not hold a civil post under the State and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not applicable to him has not been impliedly overruled by any decision of the Supreme Court. As the copyists and typists employed in the establishments of courts are not Government servants, they cannot as a right claim any increment in the cost of living allowance which has been given to the other Government servants. They cannot also claim as a right the benefits of contribution to the general provident fund. As the copyists and typists employed in the establishments of courts are not Government servants, they cannot as a right claim any increment in the cost of living allowance which has been given to the other Government servants. They cannot also claim as a right the benefits of contribution to the general provident fund. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for in the two writ applications cannot be allowed to the copyists and typists employed in the establishments of various courts. 16. In the result, both the writ applications are dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no ORDER :as to costs. S. P. SINHA. J. - I agree. Applications dismissed.